SoVote

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Feb/6/24 11:52:17 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I cannot make any promises. As the member mentioned, there is also a technology factor involved. I have never had my car stolen, but I have had things stolen out of my car three times in the past two years in my riding. My key hangs two feet behind the door, and thieves hack the signal. It seems to me that these technologies are quite advanced. They can be hacked. I cannot believe that no one can develop a system to block this signal, to prevent the system from being hacked. It is inconceivable to me that this is impossible. The member touched on this in his discussions with auto manufacturers. I wonder if he could tell us more about that.

123 words

Mr. Brian Masse

Feb/6/24 11:53:06 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it would be really good to go back to the auto sector on this. They are launching vehicles with poorer technology for stopping auto theft. As for the member's experience, I am sorry to hear of that. I can tell members that, at different times, I have found my car broken into. I am just happy that they were just instances of people basically taking what they wanted and not vandalizing the rest. I have had other times where the windows have been smashed because they saw something. These things are not new. They have been happening for a long period of time, but the reality is that, with changing technology, and with the automation of vehicles starting remotely, we have not kept up with security, in how this is used to sell vehicles, maintain them and keep them in our driveways.

145 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Feb/6/24 11:53:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in reality, as members know, we take the issue of auto theft very seriously. I want to start by saying that the NDP, unlike the two other parties, essentially has a five-point plan. I will be moving that amendment at the end of my speech, so that the Conservatives could incorporate elements that would actually make a difference in combatting auto theft. It is something that has impacted many Canadians across the country; my neighbourhood is no exception to that. The reality is that we see those numbers rising, and the Liberals have not done anything to combat auto theft. I note that the most current figures show an auto theft rate of 271 per 100,000 Canadians. That is 271 thefts for a population of 100,000 people. We do not want to go back to the days of the Harper regime, when the numbers were almost twice that. There were 487 thefts per 100,000, or 443 in some years. The five worst years, in terms of auto thefts over the last 15 years, were under the Harper regime. Therefore, the Conservatives need to learn a lesson from their very bad record in terms of the rate of auto theft that existed under the Harper Conservatives. How the Conservatives responded is illustrative of how important it is for the NDP voice in the House, as adults in the room, to actually bring forward very thoughtful policy. The reality is that the Harper regime cut $600 million from RCMP funding. Why would that even make sense when, as I mentioned, there was a high crime rate? Why would the Conservatives cut and slash to that extent? It does not make sense. However, it is not just that; it is that over 1,000 CBSA border officers were cut as well. Therefore, the Conservatives gutted the CBSA services at a time when, as we know, the crime syndicates were increasingly international in nature. There were cuts to the RCMP and cuts to the CBSA, but the most egregious cuts were to a program that ran across the country. It had a remarkable impact in British Columbia, and I worked very closely with it; that is the B.C. crime prevention centre, which invests in and works with local law enforcement to cut crime. We know that a dollar spent on crime prevention actually saves six dollars in policing costs, in court costs and in prison costs. Therefore, it is a remarkably effective investment. If the government invests in crime prevention in the country, it ends up achieving a lower crime rate, having fewer victims and, ultimately, saving money on policing, on prisons and on court costs. What did the Harper regime do? Conservatives have never stood in this House and explained why they did this, but they slashed crime prevention funding to the point where centres such as the B.C. crime prevention centre had to close. None of this makes any sense at all. If we go back to how Conservatives act now as opposed to how they acted when the Harper regime was in place, we see that we have to take action. For most of the years under Harper, the auto theft rate was higher than it is now. The Liberals have not taken action, and the NDP is pressing in this House of Commons that we adopt the five points we have raised. I hope to add them to the motion, if the Conservatives agree to act. The Conservatives had an opportunity to provide additional supports for the RCMP, for CBSA and for FINTRAC, and I am going to come back to that in a moment. The reality is that FINTRAC plays a role in cutting down the financial transactions that, internationally, allow the crime syndicates to prosper. What did Conservatives do? In December 2023, they proposed and voted to cut the CBSA by $23 million. CBSA is already underfunded. As I mentioned earlier, the Conservatives cut 1,100 positions when they were in government. What possible reason could Conservatives give for slashing the budget for CBSA? There is more. In vote 76, they also voted to gut FINTRAC, which has the primary responsibility to actually track and catch those who are using the flow of money internationally to foster crime. Conservatives voted to cut that. Perhaps the most egregious votes were votes 103, 104 and 105. Conservatives voted to cut over $100 million from the RCMP. Conservatives would say that is a lot less than when we were in government and slashed $600 million. However, the reality is that, given their actions in December, their motion today shows huge hypocrisy, a contradiction that is difficult for any Conservative to defend. That is why they are choosing not to debate this in the House today. They are choosing not to respond to why they gutted the RCMP, CBSA and crime prevention programs, as well as why, over the last 15 years, they had the five worst years for auto theft. The Conservatives have not explained that or why they voted to cut FINTRAC, CBSA and the RCMP. Let us see what the Conservatives do in the House on the issue of crimes that affect all Canadians, from New Westminster—Burnaby to Montreal and Saguenay. We know that there is an international crime ring that makes money by stealing vehicles. The Conservatives' answer at the time, when they were in power, was to make significant cuts to the RCMP's budget, reduce the services of the Canada Border Services Agency and apply budget cuts to every program intended to prevent crime. That is what the Conservatives do. Right now, they are talking about common sense, but their actions in the past made no sense at all. There is very clear evidence that we cannot rely on the Conservatives. They do exactly the opposite of what they themselves are proposing in this motion. To conclude, this is serious business. The Liberals have not acted as they should have. The Conservatives are contradicting themselves because they made budget cuts to all essential services aimed at preventing auto theft across Canada. As is our practice in the NDP caucus, as adults in the room, we are actually going to propose something that would mean real action to counter auto theft and take out the parts of the Conservative motion that are disinformation. I hope they agree to the following amendment. I move that the motion be amended by replacing the words “changes the Liberal government made in their soft on crime Bill C-5 that allows for car stealing criminals to be on house arrest instead of jail” with the words “cuts made to crime-prevention programs and to frontline border officers made by the previous Conservative government”, and adding the following after paragraph (c): “(d) require auto manufacturers to improve security features in the cars they sell”, and “(e) put in place tough new measures to crack down on organized crime and money laundering linked to auto thefts.” This is actually a five-point plan that would make a difference in auto thefts. We certainly hope that the Conservatives accept this amendment, which would fight auto theft in Canada.

1212 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/6/24 12:03:30 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion, or in the case that he or she is not present, consent may be given or denied by the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsored party. Since the sponsor is not present in the Chamber, I ask the acting whip if he consents to the amendment being moved. The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

91 words

Mr. Greg McLean

Feb/6/24 12:04:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have read the amendment the NDP is trying to put forward to a motion to make sure we address crime in this country. It seems to be putting the onus of the crimes onto the car companies and their workers. We reject that wholeheartedly. We ask the NDP to stop hiding behind the government and stop supporting it in everything it does. It is a preposterous amendment. We ask that—

74 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/6/24 12:04:31 p.m.
Watch

Order. The hon. House leader for the NDP.

8 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Feb/6/24 12:04:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it says, “put in place tough new measures to crack down on organized crime and money laundering linked to auto thefts.” The member has obviously not read it, so I do not believe he should comment on it. Conservatives should just accept the amendment.

48 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/6/24 12:04:49 p.m.
Watch

This is not the place to actually have a debate. There is a lot of opportunity for people to have debate in the House. Therefore, I will ask the hon. acting whip whether he consents or does not consent to the amendment.

42 words

Mr. Greg McLean

Feb/6/24 12:05:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty clear that the words the New Democrats are putting in here are a deflection to try to continue to cover up what the government is doing here, as they have finally become aware of it. We reject the amendment.

46 words

The Deputy Speaker

Feb/6/24 12:05:14 p.m.
Watch

There is no consent. Therefore, pursuant to Standing Order 85, the amendment cannot be moved at this time. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Don Valley East.

28 words

Mr. Michael Coteau (Don Valley East, Lib.)

Feb/6/24 12:05:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have been an elected member for 20 years, whether on the school board, provincial government or here. Fighting crime has always been connected to what I have worked on in my life, and there has always been a correlation between good investments in programming and preventative measures. Crime cannot be dealt with entirely through policing. The Conservatives seem to have a very narrow perspective on crime, which is to throw people in prison and throw away the key. I have always looked at preventative measures as one of the solutions to fight crime. How does the member think Conservatives would approach preventative measures for crime mitigation in this country?

112 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Feb/6/24 12:06:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, they do not. Conservatives are absolutely appalling when it comes to crime. We have talked about how high the auto theft rate was under the Harper Conservatives. They just said no to putting in place crime prevention programs, reinforcing frontline border officers, requiring auto manufacturers to ensure that there are security features in the cars they sell and putting in place tough new measures to crack down on organized crime and money laundering linked to auto thefts. We know that Conservatives are soft on money laundering and organized crime. They will not take on corporate CEOs who are spending $10 on a car door for a $100,000 automobile. They are not putting in place any of the measures that would address the issue. Of course, when we look across the country at which provinces have the highest crime rates, they are the Conservative provinces. In every single case, they have policies that are designed to fuel crime, not cut it. Therefore, for Conservatives to say no to this common-sense amendment just shows complete and utter hypocrisy.

180 words

Mr. Marc Dalton (Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, CPC)

Feb/6/24 12:07:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that, under the Liberals, supported by the New Democrats, auto thefts and crime have skyrocketed. The New Democrats need to bear some responsibility. New Democrats have pointed to the government confidence motions on funding that we have voted against. That is because we have no confidence in the government, unlike the New Democratic Party, which is supporting the incompetency of the Liberals. Canadians are paying the price. Under our plan, we will see some major investments and changes in ports regarding security. Will the New Democratic Party support our motion?

98 words

Mr. Peter Julian

Feb/6/24 12:08:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the Conservative plan, and the Conservatives voted in front of the entire country. Every Canadian saw they wanted to cut over $100 million from the RCMP budget. Every Canadian saw they wanted to gut CBSA; they did it when they were in power and they are doing it again. Every Canadian saw they wanted to gut FINTRAC, which is supposed to be ensuring that criminal financial transactions are caught at source. I think every Canadian saw in December how a Conservative government would act. We lived through the Harper regime. We know that, when it comes to crime, Conservatives simply do not have any smart-on-crime policies at all. The NDP offered a way to fix their motion, and they rejected it. They do not want to tackle organized crime. They do not want to crack down on money laundering. They do not want to install the crime prevention programs that save so much money and make sure that Canadians are not victims of crime. The Conservatives do not want to restore what they gutted when they were in power. They do not want to compel automobile CEOs to put in place security measures to ensure that cars cannot be stolen easily. They said no to all of those things, and it is on the record.

222 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman (Thornhill, CPC)

Feb/6/24 12:10:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague and good friend, the member for Oxford. Since 2015, the Liberals have pursued a systematic agenda of dismantling Canada’s judicial system and undermining the rule of law in this country. They have not only done so with their repeated ethics violations and blatant disrespect for the charter but have also done so through more legitimate means, like through acts of Parliament. Thanks to Liberal bills that passed under a former justice minister, committing crimes has become easier and more common than before. It seems that under the current minister, the streak will continue, given the responses we have heard in the House already, along with some colourful language of course. At every step of the way, Liberals have placed the rights of offenders over the rights of victims, and their woke, out-of-touch ideology over common sense and safety. With respect to deterring crimes, the Liberals' Bill C-5 eliminates mandatory minimum sentences for dangerous crimes such as robbery with a firearm, sexual assault and drug trafficking. There are others. Not only that, but it also allows hardened criminals to serve their reduced sentence in the comfort of their own home, to serve time while watching TV in their living room, sleeping in their own bed and enjoying the privileges that all those who have not committed crimes enjoy. With respect to arresting criminals, the catch-and-release practices now mean that it is nearly impossible to keep dangerous offenders in jail for more than a few hours. They are then released back into the world, free to commit crimes, sometimes even the same crimes and on the same day, over and over again. The revolving door spins, cycling through a rotation of hardened, merciless lawbreakers who face no accountability. They are free to break the law over and over again, putting the public at risk and propagating unnecessary harm on communities, innocent victims, families and neighbourhoods. Finally, with respect to prosecuting criminals, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP incompetence, the government has decayed our justice system and made it just a shell of its former self. It takes months to get a court date. Resources have been stretched to the limit, which makes it harder to catch criminals, and it is harder to keep them accountable. Therefore it is no surprise that our streets are more dangerous and that Canadians are worried that their once-safe neighbourhoods are subject to crime, chaos, drugs and disorder. Every single day we see new, outrageous headlines about individuals who are putting communities in danger and about a system that is failing Canadians. Just last week, a 43-year-old man stabbed a total stranger with a syringe in broad daylight in downtown Toronto. The man was out on bail for previous assaults and has had more than 40 convictions in his lifetime, including failure to comply with the court and failure to attend court dates. The incident was in the middle of the day in Toronto. However, thanks to the Liberal policies, we know he will get bail one more time and that the cycle will continue again and again. Stories like these add up; that is what makes Canadians feel unsafe. It is not just a feeling; it is based on empirical data and evidence. The stories not only add up to broken communities, broken victims and broken families; they also a story about the state of our country. Since 2015, gang crimes have doubled and violent crime is up 37%. Canada’s murder rate is the highest it has been in 30 years, since the last time there was a Liberal government in power, and nowhere is the story more out of control and more apparent than when it comes to auto theft. Too many people wake up, look out the window and see that their car that was sitting in their driveway the night before is no longer there. It is gone. It was taken while they were sleeping in safe communities like mine, where, at one time, nobody locked their front door. Since 2015, car thefts have tripled in Canada. More than 100,000 vehicles are being stolen every year, including nearly 10,000 in Toronto alone. That means that every six minutes in Canada, a car is stolen. Gangs and criminals profit from the criminal activity and use it to finance even more criminal activities, like more car theft, arms trafficking, human trafficking and drug trafficking. Do not listen to me; the Prime Minister actually admitted it in his own press release. It costs every Canadian who drives almost everywhere more to pay for this. It cost the insurance industry a billion dollars in 2022. Everyone in the province is now paying more to drive. In Ontario, car theft claims, just in the first half of last year, were up 329%. That accounts for $700 million in losses. It means $130 more for every Ontario driver on insurance. Why is this happening? Let us lead ourselves back to the dangerous catch-and-release policies that unleashed crime and chaos in communities. Bill C-75 allows repeat violent offenders to be released on bail within hours of arrest. They then often re-offend. Last year, even Mayor Steven Del Duca, who is the mayor of Vaughan and probably a familiar name to many on the other side, wrote to the Prime Minister, calling on the federal government to urgently modernize Canada’s bail system to ensure that dangerous offenders are kept off our streets for committing crimes ranging from gun violence to home break-ins and auto thefts. The mayor wrote to Canada’s then public safety minister, asking about auto theft specifically and asking that CBSA protocols be tightened for screening and inspection of exports leaving our country. It fell on deaf ears. There was nothing until last week from the government's member of Parliament who represents a riding in Vaughan. The letter was written in January, after the problem got so out of control that the council had to step in to demand action for something it had been asking for. For what happens after offenders have been convicted, the government did not let it stop at Bill C-75. Bill C-5 gives convicts house arrest, even those with long, storied histories of stealing multiple cars. This means that they can just walk out their front door, be on the streets again and start stealing cars and terrorizing neighbourhoods when they are done doing whatever they do in the comforts of their own homes. One last thing is that the federal government controls our ports, the places where organized crime is taking place: en route to federal ports and at federal ports. Stolen cars are waiting at federal ports to be shipped overseas. It is time for a new approach. It is time to start increasing mandatory jail time to deter the actual crime and not to have people keep doing it over and over again. We propose three years for three thefts, and of course ending house arrest for car thieves while also increasing sentences for gang-associated car thieves. Police, insurance associations, community groups and business organizations have been sounding the alarm bell about this for years. Our own constituents send us videos of it happening right in their front driveway, but their concerns have fallen on the deaf ears of the Liberal government, which in the meantime still continues to stand with lawbreakers instead of with law enforcement. Now the calls have reached a breaking point, and the Liberals are finally going to do something about it. What is that something? Are they going to increase the punishments? No, they will not. Are they going to end catch-and-release policies that turn repeat violent offenders back onto our streets? Are they going to crack down on the incompetence at Canadian ports that allows thousands of cars? Nope, they will not. They are going to have a summit. They are going to sit around a table. They are going to have a meeting. They are going to come out with a press release. They are going to take some photos. They are going to talk about it, after eight years, this problem that has gotten out of control. They had a summit on food prices; food prices went up. They had a summit on housing; housing prices have doubled. I can hardly wait to see the results from this summer. In fact, I think Canadians would beg them not to have a summit. Instead, they should start cracking down on the violent offenders, keep them behind bars when they re-commit, stop the house arrests and actually get serious about fighting crime in every single neighbourhood across the country.

1476 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Coteau (Don Valley East, Lib.)

Feb/6/24 12:19:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member started her speech by talking about woke policies. She used the word “woke”. I have always been a person who has invested into preventative measures, like acknowledging things like systemic racism and acknowledging that we need to invest into communities where there may be some disaggregated race-based data that would contribute to making those decisions. Does the member opposite acknowledge that systemic racism is real in this country? Should we be making investments based on data collection?

84 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Feb/6/24 12:20:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, violent crime in this country has gone up by 32%. Gang-related crime has gone up by over 90% in this country. There needs to be something done about it, and that is exactly what we are talking about right here. We are talking about the solutions that we are going to put in place to keep repeat violent offenders in jail. The member can talk about whatever he wants, but this motion today is about, frankly, keeping our cars in our driveway and putting the bad guys in jail. I do not know why that is such a novel concept in this country.

106 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Feb/6/24 12:21:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, of course, we could impose harsher sentences, but in order to be able to do so, we have to be able to bring down the organizations and catch the people who are committing these crimes. Will the member do the honourable thing today and recognize that, by making cuts to the CBSA, the RCMP and ports, the Conservative government made a mistake that is having an impact on what is happening today?

74 words

Ms. Melissa Lantsman

Feb/6/24 12:21:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is a constant refrain that has been coming up in the House. The Conservatives actually spent less money, and the rate of crime was lower than it is today. We have had a 300% increase in car theft in Toronto since the Liberals took power. Yes, we probably did spend less money as a Conservative government, but does the member know what is worse than failure? It is expensive failure, and that is exactly what we see from this government.

83 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Feb/6/24 12:22:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did not answer the question. The Conservatives, when they were in government, cut $600 million to the RCMP. They got rid of the RCMP recruitment fund. They cut over 1,100 jobs at the CBSA, and we are still feeling the effects of that today. In fact, the NDP brought forward amendments today, common-sense proposals, which I would think the Conservatives would support, including getting CEOs to make sure car manufacturers change the way they are designing vehicles to make them harder to steal, but they did not do that. Also, we heard testimony from the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Again, the Conservatives, the law-and-order party, failed to listen to the experts. The worst provinces for car theft are Conservative-governed provinces, so maybe my colleague can explain why that is happening in Conservative-led provinces, why the Conservatives cut so seriously and so deeply on the RCMP and the CBSA, and whether they regret those cuts.

166 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 276